Interesting dissenting viewpoint from “The Shape of Days.” Read it here.

He says this EJR story is being blown way out of proportion, and it’s a matter of free speech that should be countered with more speech, not pitchforks and torches.

Look, people say crazy things all the time. Walk down the street right now and ask people whether they think US soldiers deliberately try to kill journalists in war zones. I promise you that it won’t take you long to find somebody who’ll say yes. Do we put these cranks on the news? Of course we don’t. Because they are wrong.

So why is Eason Jordan different? Well, I can think of two reasons. First, he’s different because he’s Eason Jordan, head of CNN. There’s a public trust issue involved, and if the head of one of the country’s — no, the world’s — most influential news brokers is a little undermedicated, I think we deserve to know that. Second, Eason Jordan is different because of the context in which his statements were made. He didn’t just say it to somebody walking down the street; he said it on an open panel in Davos in front of rolling cameras.

…

Is the public trust harmed when Eason Jordan makes malicious allegations about our soldiers? Definitely. But no more than when Sy Hersh or Robert Fisk or any other member of the press corps does it. In fact, I dare say that Hersh and Fisk and Arnett and Rather and Mapes and their ilk have done much more harm to the public trust than Eason Jordan has.

But really, for me it all boils down to one nagging little detail: the freedom of speech. I don’t mean that in the clichéd sense that we’re all free to speak our minds even when we’re wrong. Everybody knows that. I mean it in the more abstract sense that the way to correct bad — factually incorrect, malicious, libelous (or in this case slanderous) — speech isn’t by leading a crusade to have the speaker stripped of his microphone. It’s by offering up speech of our own.

The difference though is that when you’re a public figure purporting to represent an unbiased fact reporting organization the public has the right to hold you to a higher standard. Sure, you can say what you want, but your words impact people and you have to use them responsibly when you are a spokesperson.

Via: LaShawn Barber.

For my full Eason Jordan coverage, click here.

Wow! We were counting quarters yesterday and working on my sons’ collection of state quartes, and today I happened across this story via Fark.

To most people, that Wisconsin quarter jingling in our pockets or purses is worth exactly 25 cents.

But to coin collectors, it could be worth $500 or so if there is an extra leaf - or a flaw that looks like a leaf - on the cornstalk pictured on the tail side of the quarter.

The discovery has the coin-collecting world flipping. Rare variations can drive up the price that a coin fetches in the collectors market.

…

The extra markings on the cornstalk - there actually are two types - were noticed in Tucson, Ariz., in December. So far, coins that bear it have been found mostly in that area. A few also have been reported around San Antonio, Texas.

No one is sure whether the markings, one of which looks like a leaf curved down and the other a leaf pointing up, were put on intentionally during a phase of production last fall or if a gouge or foreign object in the die caused the variation. The leaf-like markings appear only on coins minted in Denver, and they might have occurred after one of multiple die changes that take place as coins are being struck.

Here are the two variations that are “wrong.”

And here is a link to the correct one.

UPDATE: Fark has a photoshop contest on this…

Potentially bringing new applications to the term money laundering, CBS has a story that is worth noting.

Money that has been contaminated with a virus; it’s a whole new possible direction for bioterrorism. It is a case that the FBI terrorism unit has taken over from state police that involves several cities, including Philadelphia.
…
Earlier this month, Pennsylvania State Troopers intercepted $250,000 dollars during a routine traffic stop. The alleged drug money, which had been sealed in plastic, was being driven from Columbus, Ohio to Northeast Philadelphia.

According to law enforcement sources, after counting the seized cash, troopers began feeling ill and one trooper was even hospitalized with flu-like symptoms.

Sources tell CBS 3 that tests on the cash counter revealed the presence of a toxin derived from the bacteria staphylococcus.

Dr. Joseph Smith, a local terrorism expert says it may be a new application of terrorism, although this time it was used as a deterrent among thieves: “I am not that surprised, this is the nature of terrorism. By its nature, you have to say we must always be mindful and careful of new applications.”

Interesting crackdown on parents for the kids’ truancy. Seems the school district has this novel idea that parents should be responsible for the behavior of their children… and that:

attendance is necessary for improving student achievement.

Critical Mass has some interesting observations regarding Google news pulling from Blogs.

And this, right after LGF and Michelle received rejection letters because they don’t have a screening process in place for their content.

I love the my.Yahoo feature of aggregating blog news based on RSS feeds. If you’ve not done it yet, be sure to add my RSS feed to your my.Yahoo!!

A bit more here from The Wayne Review, and a creative idea from Basil.

Power Line has some thoughts on the Eason Jordan story and the MSM.

One has to wonder, where is Drudge on this? I’m sure he’s in the loop on what is going on in the blogosphere, but I’ve not seen him do any linking or headlining of Jordan’s quotes. I wonder why.

Right Wing News has Myopic Zeal listed as the “Website of the Day” today. If you’re coming from there, welcome, and enjoy your visit.

Check out the “recent posts” links on the right side of this page for quick jumps to what’s hot right now…

-MZ!

From ScrappleFace:

“We’re there to kill terrorists, not journalists,” said an unnamed Pentagon official. “The new rules are designed to make it easier for our personnel to distinguish between the two, since they’re often found together and have similar objectives.”

LOL.

I started this blogging thing a month or so ago for real. In that time, I’ve had a couple of semi-high profile links from places like Captain’s Quarters, Michelle Malkin, and LaShawn Barber. I’ve learned how to play the trackback game, taking every opportunity to comment on those with extra-liberal trackback setups, like WizBang. I’m a “slithering reptile” in the Ecosystem. I am the “website of the day” at Brassknuckles.net today. My traffic has gone from zero to a few hundred unique visitors a day in the last month or so. That seems like a lot at first, but it’s not really.

And I’ve found that to keep traffic, you need to constantly - always - be on top of the hot topic of the day. This takes time and effort. So now I’m wondering, is it worth it? Why do it?

There are several possible reasons that I can think of to really spend time on this.

1. It’s fun
2. It’s profitable
3. It’s a soapbox that might impact the world
4. It might make you almost famous.

To deconstruct.

It’s fun.

Yes, it is somewhat fun. I read the stuff anyway, why not post it out there for others to see? Well, because they can get it elsewhere. It’s only fun, really, if one of the other options goes with it, like it’s profitable or it makes a difference in the world. There’s also a bit of a charge, which I’m sure is a novelty, of seeing how many readers check out your blog and where they come from.

It’s profitable.

Well, not yet. I’ve earned a few bucks on Google ads (click ‘em!!!!). I think the way this blogging thing really becomes profitable is if it lands you a real job as a writer, you come out with your own book, or whatever. I already am a famous writer (well, ok, I contributed a few chapters to this book), and I really don’t have much desire to do that for a living. So unless the Google ads or Amazon links or sponsor ads start making some money, this is not profitable yet. I wonder, does it become profitable at 1,000 users a day? 100,000? 1,000,000?

It’s a soapbox that might impact the world.

I think there may be something to this one. This is probably the motivation that might actually keep me going. Without the blog storm, Dan Rather would not have been exposed. Without blog storm, Eason Jordan would not have been (or will have been) exposed. Bloggers are a HUGE factor in the next generation of media, and I might be able to be a small part of that. But what if I stopped doing this? Some other blogger will take my place? But what if everyone had the same thought? It’s almost like saying “why should I bother voting, there are lots of others who vote.” And in addition to just a political platform, it may be a way to share my faith with others by integrating it into my work, as LaShawn tries do do regularly.

It might make you almost famous.

Well, yeah, maybe. But I don’t think I want that. I’m not really trying to hide who I am, but I’m not publicizing it. When I email other bloggers, I use my real name, but I don’t scream from the top of my blog what my name is, who I am, where I live, etc. I don’t want to do magazine or TV interviews. I don’t want to write columns for major papers. I have a “real job” and I work from home, so if I was almost famous I would have to buy some new clothes and worry if every hair is in place. Maybe some day I’ll be interested in this, but not today. I’m pretty content to be me, right where I am.

So why keep blogging?

I’m not sure, but I’m going to keep going for a while. Maybe once this Easongate thing dies down it will be easier to keep up with the Jones’ … right now it seems impossible to keep up with Captain Ed, LaShawn in terms of sheer volume, and people like Michelle who have the connections to call congressmen and media bigwigs and actually get through.

Maybe my little space will contribute to changing the world somehow. Maybe it will simply be fun for a while.

Why do YOU blog? Comments and trackbacks are welcome.

The Easongate swarm is interesting to observe, is it about Eason? Is it about the blogger doing it gaining noteriety? Is it about profiting from controversy? I think it may be all of those things mixed together. And if a blogger wants noteriety, why? It’s probably either #2 or #3 … making money or changing the world. I guess there are people out there who also enjoy the ego boost as well, even if it’s not profitable, but I can’t really relate to that one as much.

Someone like Michelle blogs, I presume, to further her name recognition, her respect by the average Joe, and ultimately to help her career as a writer / pundit / columnist. Nothing wrong with that. LaShawn blogs (see Update III: 5:27 pm) to eventually do what she loves full time, and - I think - to impact the lives of her readers. That girl somewhere out west who got fired from her real job blogged because she loved writing - and now is blogging because she is unemployed. Instapundit must make money somehow. INDC didn’t really make money last year. Captain Ed either wants to change the world or he makes money doing this. Maybe both. Dawn Eden picks a topic and sticks with it, sharing her passion for life. And there are lots of others out there… I wonder, why do you blog?

-MZ.

For additional background, see my previous posts here, here, here and here.

Today, it looks like Michelle Malkin has decided to jump headlong into this controversy. Check out her posts:

David Gergen speaks.
Chris Dodd speaks.
Howard Kurtz and Mickey Kaus.
Justin Vaisse’ account. (Direct link here).
Deconstruction of Howard Kurtz‘ article. (Article here)
Eason Jordan does it AGAIN?

And there’s lots more on the Howard Kurtz piece in the Washington Post in addition to Michelle’s analysis. Hugh Hewitt weighs in. LaShawn has an opinion. Ed Morissey also takes a shot.

It took Kurtz over a week to finally get around to publishing this article on Eason’s Fables. In that time, it appears that Kurtz did as little investigation as possible on Jordan. My readers and I found all of Jordan’s earlier commentary within 24 hours, and we only have very limited access to Nexis and full-time jobs doing other things than media analysis. Worse than that, all of this information has been repeatedly presented on my blog — in fact, it was all presented on my blog today, and we know Howard Kurtz read my blog sometime this afternoon. Why didn’t Kurtz ask about his remarks in Portugal from three months ago, or about his identical accusations against Israel two years ago? Why didn’t Kurtz press Jordan on the entire story? Only Kurtz can answer that, and I doubt he will have much more to say to anyone about Eason’s Fables from this point onward.

Another MSM piece appears here in the New York Sun. Captain Ed says it’s better than Howard Kurtz with only a few hours of effort.

I spoke with Roderick Boyd yesterday afternoon, probably at Hugh Hewitt’s suggestion, whom Boyd quotes for the article. Boyd got this story yesterday on top of another assignment due at roughly the same time (on the financial performance of two NY media stocks). Yet he managed to investigate the entire story, get new information out of Barney Frank, talk to at least two of the bloggers involved in keeping this story alive, and publish a news article instead of a facile shrug meant to bury the story. Compare this to Howard Kurtz’s effort, after having the story and an interview with David Gergen for over a week. Kurtz should be embarassed with his wan performance.

LaShawn notices, on her Easongate round up of the day (she’s also got a category chock full of info here):

Somebody’s trying to profit from the Eason Jordan scandal by auctioning off easonsfables.com on ebay. The nerve of some people.

It looks like there may be a bit of a twist, in that there needs to be some approval to distribute the anxiously awaited tape. See sisyphus for more.

UPDATE: Rebecca MacKinnon has started a del.icio.us list for Easongate.

This story brought to mind a failed presidentail candidate who may not have had the personal conscience that these men did regarding wearing a purple heart which was not truly deserved.

The story of Marine Staff Sgt. Robert Arellano’s wound is not exactly heroic. He was sitting in a tent in southern Iraq when the 9mm handgun he was repairing went off, sending a bullet through his left leg.

That’s why his heart sank in spring 2003, when he heard that he would receive the Purple Heart as he recovered at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda.

Protests to superior officers were brushed aside.

“I told them I didn’t think I deserved it,” said Arellano, 38, of Oceanside, Calif. The thought of wearing a medal he didn’t earn “was eating me alive.”

Oh, and check this out. I wonder if there’s a statute of limitations on this.

Once the Marines Corps realized the error, it had no choice but to remove the awards from the Marines’ records, officials said. They did not require that the medals be returned.

“The most important point is that the revocation was the right thing to do in order to maintain the sanctity and the specialness of the award,” said Lt. Col. T.V. Johnson, a Marine Corps spokesman. “You don’t want to be identified as someone wearing their medals incorrectly, or worse, wearing something you don’t deserve.”